Memberships & Affiliations

American Intellectual Property Law Association

New York Intellectual Property Law Association

Bradford J. Badke

Partner

Jim is an established lead trial counsel with numerous recent jury and bench trial victories in bet-the-company cases in courtrooms across the country. His litigation successes for client Nova Biomedical, which faced formidable opposition from three leading life sciences companies, are highlighted in a recent Forbes magazine article. Jim has been featured as American Lawyer's “Litigator of the Week” for his successes in the landmark Therasense inequitable conduct case. Further on the basis of his work on this case, Jim and his team were recently ranked number 1 in the nation “lawyers to the innovators” by the Financial Times in its Innovative Lawyers Report “FT Law 25.”

Jim’s patent trial and litigation practice includes all technologies, but is focused primarily in the medical device, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including litigation under the Hatch–Waxman Act. Jim is a pioneer in medical device patent litigation, having continuously litigated cases involving medical device patents for more than 25 years. His cases have involved a wide range of medical device technology, including blood glucose devices, surgical staplers, laparoscopic instruments and coronary stents. Based on his extensive experience in pharmaceutical cases, Jim has been recognized by Chambers USA as a “go-to” for Hatch-Waxman litigation. His cases in the pharmaceutical industry have included a number of life-saving drugs such as recombinant Factor VIII used in the treatment of hemophilia. Based on his extensive experience in life sciences cases, Jim has been featured as a “Life Sciences Star” in Euromoney’s LMG Life Sciences 2012, 2013 and 2014.

In addition to his trial work, Jim appears regularly before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, having argued six cases before the Court in the past two years, including one (Therasense) in which the Court sat en banc. Benchmark Appellate has named Jim as a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “Star,” one of less than fifty lawyers in the country to achieve this distinction.

Client Feedback

Jim has received extensive positive feedback from clients, judges and attorney ranking institutions.

Chambers USA ranks Jim as a leading lawyer “on the back of extensive praise for his trial skills,” and quoted a client who said “his cross examination skills are the best I've seen, he's good on his feet, and he quickly establishes a real presence and credibility with the jury.” Other “sources single out his ‘insightful and creative strategies’ which have proved to be ‘stunningly successful.’” Overall, Chambers states that he “is a seasoned patent litigator with a track record of success in the biotechnology, medical devices and pharmaceuticals spheres. He is a go-to for abbreviated New Drug Application litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act.”

International Asset Management (IAM) Magazine named Jim one of the world’s leading patent litigators, noting that he was a “client favorite.” In interviews conducted by IAM, clients are quoted as saying that Jim “is convenient to work with, accessible and quick to act” and “has the ability to move away from the jargon and build a persuasive case that ordinary laymen can grasp, connecting him well with a jury.”

IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners 2012 identifies Jim as a “medical device, biotechnology and pharmaceutical expert,” and states that he is “extremely popular with clients” quoting a client who stated: “He doesn’t have an air of arrogance that some trial attorneys have and is very down to earth. He is always mindful of the needs of his clients, and the quality of service he provides is special.” In its 2014 edition: “A top trial counsel with a flair for winning bet-the-company cases, Bradford J. Badke is a leading light in the life sciences.”

LMG Life Sciences 2012 identified Jim as a “Life Sciences Star,” stating “Leading the Firm’s IP litigation team is industry luminary Bradford (Jim) Badke. Known by his counterparts as a ‘heavy hitter in the industry,’ Badke has been lead counsel for many distinguished clients . . .” Jim is described by a client as "one of the most superb lawyers I have worked with" with respect to his experience with Jim in the courtroom. In its 2014 edition: he “was recognized by peers as a leading litigator in matters concerning high-value IP assets, and is particularly well versed in the medical device sector . . .”

Judge James Otero (CD California): “This [case]… was exceptionally tried. It was a judge’s delight because the lawyers were so cooperative and professional and it was presented in such a well ordered form and format... [A]ll of the lawyers and all of the work were required because of the complexity of the case. So when all is said and done... it was money wisely spent... and successfully spent.” (This was at the conclusion of a jury trial in which Jim Badke lead a team representing the prevailing party.)

Experience

Therasense, Inc. (Abbott Laboratories) v. Becton Dickinson & Co. and Nova Biomedical Corp.: Represented Nova and Becton, Dickinson and Company in a patent infringement suit involving four U.S. patents relating to blood glucose test strips. Prevailed on all four patents. Two of the four patents were disposed of on summary judgment (both declared not infringed and one invalid), the third patent was declared both invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct after a six-day bench trial, and the fourth patent was invalidated on two separate grounds after a three-week jury trial. The Court also found the case to be exceptional and awarded our clients their attorneys’ fees. All judgments in this case were affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit though one issue, inequitable conduct, was reconsidered by the Court en banc. Jim argued before the en banc court on this issue, and on remand, prevailed again on inequitable conduct.

Medtronic MiniMed, Inc. v. Nova Biomedical Corp. et al.: Represented Nova in a misappropriation of trade secrets suit relating to a blood glucose meter and three other causes of action. Prevailed on all causes of action after a three-week jury trial in Los Angeles federal court. The trial judge later stated that the case had been “exceptionally tried.”

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals v. Glenmark Generics Limited et al.: Led a team in a case tried in February 2015 in the District of Delaware based on an ANDA filing relating to Finacea®, a drug used to treat Rosacea.

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticalsv. River’s Edge Pharmaceuticals: Leads a team in a case pending in Atlanta based on an ANDA filing relating to Desonate®, a dermatology product.

Nova Biomedical Corporation Confidential Arbitration: Successfully led a team representing Nova in a five day arbitration trial in 2014 concerning Nova’s blood glucose product.

Novartis Vaccines v. Wyeth (Pfizer): Led a team in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas on recombinant Factor VIII for hemophiliacs, which settled on the eve of trial.

CardioNet et al. v. Mednet et al.: Successfully led a team in a case involving remote cardiac monitors pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which in 2014 on the eve of trial resulted in a consent judgment of infringement and validity of all five CardioNet patents-in-suit.

CardioNet et al. v. ScottCare: Leads a team in a case involving remote cardiac monitors pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which is set to be tried in June 2015.

Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. and Corange Int’l Ltd. v. Nova Biomedical Corp. et al.: Successfully led a team representing Nova in a patent infringement case involving two patents relating to blood glucose test strips asserted by Roche Diagnostics. In that case, the court ruled on summary judgment that Nova does not infringe either patent after a successful Markman ruling in Nova’s favor.

PerkinElmer Inc. et al. v. Intema Ltd.: Successfully led a team representing PerkinElmer in a case involving a patent relating to a Down's Syndrome screening method. The case was dismissed on summary judgment, and on appeal by the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal on the basis of lack of patentable subject matter.

King Pharmaceuticals (Pfizer) v. Teva: Successfully led a team through trial in an ANDA case on the Epipen® auto injector used to deliver epinephrine in the District of Delaware.

Awards

Financial Times Innovative Lawyers Report “FT Law 25”: ranked with the top national score as a “standout” in category of “lawyers to the innovators”